Thread 96486079

I have played and GMed a lot of grid-based tactical RPGs: D&D 4e, Path/Starfinder 2e, Draw Steel, Tom Abbadon's ICON, level2janitor's Tactiquest, Tacticians of Ahm, and Tailfeathers/Kazzam, for example.

One scenario that I consistently find unsatisfying is when the optimal play for either the PCs or the enemies is to skirmish or turtle in such a way that the other side simply cannot attack back. This can happen in various ways, usually involving some combination of high speed, flight, and long-ranged attacks. I dislike this because it drags out combat, and rewards long and drawn-out defensive plays over more aggressive action. (I have been on both the delivering end of this and the receiving end within just the past few days, playing Draw Steel. This game has too many high-speed flyers with long-ranged attacks, even at low levels.)

There are some band-aid fixes that the GM could apply, such as making the combat area small, giving the combat area a low ceiling, or removing walls or other obstructions that could be used for cover. However, these feel clumsy to me.

Some grid-based tactical RPGs, like ICON, based on Lancer, offer a solution: "capture zone" scenarios. The specifics vary depending on the system, but the idea is that the map contains several special areas situated on the ground. PCs and their enemies fight over these capture zones, and gain points at the end of each round based on the number of conscious PCs or enemies occupying the capture zones. (There might be "weights" to enemies, so weaker enemies count for less, while stronger enemies count for more.) Key to this are round-based reinforcements, round limits, or both. The PCs cannot just kill all the enemies, and have to actually occupy the capture zones.

(Continued.)

This has several advantages:
• It becomes clear what the PCs and the enemies are actually fighting over, rather than a flimsy "I guess we have to kill each other now." In a fantasy setting, the capture zones are probably ley points, magic circles, or other little loci of mystical power; seizing control over them allows the controllers to instantly overwhelm their opponents, and presumably turn the energy towards some other purpose.
• Mobility is still important, because it lets combatants actually reach the zones, or go from zone to zone as needed.
• Melee attacks are still important, because brawls will inevitably break out amidst the zones.
• Ranged attacks are still important, because a combatant in one zone might want to attack an opponent elsewhere.
• Forced movement is important, because it can displace a combatant away from a zone.
• Terrain creation is important, because it can make a zone hazardous, or wall off a zone. It is impractical for PCs to gather together into a single zone and wall it off, because the enemies can just occupy the other zones, and there are reinforcements.
• Because the zones are on the ground, defensive skirmishing using flight is impractical.
• Because the zones are (probably) out in the open, turtling behind cover is difficult.
• Neither side can afford to stall with defensive skirmishing, turtling, or other "Neener, neener, you cannot touch us." Aggressive action is important.
• The GM can add variety to different encounters by making some zones grant certain buffs to those inside them, while others impose debuffs.

Draw Steel has something similar, with its Assault the Defenses objective: https://steelcompendium.io/compendium/main/Bestiary/Monsters/Chapters/Monster%20Basics/#assault-the-defenses
However, after having tried it a few times, I think it is sorely in need of reinforcements, a round limit, or both. Otherwise, it stands to degenerate into "just kill the enemies," same as any other combat. I am also not a fan of the all-or-nothing victory condition, and think ICON's method of tallying points is fairer.

Overall, I find "capture zone" scenarios much more satisfying than conventional combats. Yes, this is taken straight from wargames, but I do not have a problem with that; I think the idea can be ported from wargames to grid-based tactical RPGs well enough. Do you have any experience with these scenarios, and if so, how do you like them?

>>96486091
Do you know you have a very distinct posting style? I suspect its AI since you format them the same every time

Anyway xcom had and solved this problem by adding a timer. If you cant complete the mission and extract within 12 turns the ayys start reinforcing

...So why not just try a victory point based wargame, Edna? Cause you don't have to go full on warband, you can do small skirmish teams. And I'm pretty sure that you can even do customizable characters, like with Rogue Stars.

>>96486146
What if you don't want to switch systems just to have a specific type of objective available to you? Touhoufag has a point here for once

>>96486079 (OP)
If a safe victory is inevitable the GM should just call it. If there is no uncertainty you don't need dice rolls.

>>96486242
I just asked 'why not give it a try', not "don't ever try it", anon. D&D can't do everything, and I've always found it far more miserable to try and force it to mimic features and designs from other systems than just trying those other systems out.

>>96486079 (OP)
>>96486084
OP is a gay prompter who fundamentally misunderstands RPGs.

Tactical RPGs need to go the other way and ditch the grids for measuring tape and focusing on achieving objectives, and the DM being less stringent with the specifications of how players get there. Fighting over capture points is kind of silly for RPGs, and really video-gamey, given that actual engagements are a lot more objective-based. Same with narrative fantasy stories. They're not trying to hold an area as much as achieve something, destroying a target, driving off an enemy incursion, assassinating a leader, etc. Narrative is a lot more important to RPGs and the focus should be on actually doing something rather than going somewhere.

>>96486118
agreed

>>96486242
I mean you certainly could just look up Killteam missions and convert them into whatever grid-based RPG, but the main hurdle is that it risks more of a railroad from the GM.

If the mission says 'stand by these zones to save the villagers from the invading monsters', then you run into weird edge cases.
If those zones have a chokepoint ahead of or behind them, why can the players not cut off the enemies entirely?
What happens to the villagers if the party got really lucky and killed all the enemies before they got close, but didn't stand in the zones to gain enough victory points? Do villagers just drop dead?
If the zones are to represent villagers that need rescuing, why can't they flee? If they're injured, can the party heal them in order to score max points for a zone?
And to bring this back to the stated problems in the OP post, what is it about the objective that would prevent a PC or an enemy from contesting that objective while flying 50 feet in the air and shooting arrows?

Additional objectives beyond 'kill all enemies' can be good to include, but for it to still function as a tabletop RPG, the GM needs to remember that the scenario is happening in the context of a world. If they don't, then an ideas from players on alternate ways to approach a problem get shot down, because they're simply not allowed to engage the problem in any other way.
Those "band-aid" fixes that Edna is calling clumsy are part of this, because if you're protecting villagers in a town, those objectives are going to need some cover or ceilings to explain why the flying enemies aren't just picking them off from the sky. It still ends up needing the same fixes, because just highlighting a patch of dirt and calling it a capture zone doesn't mean anything.

>>96488990
>>96489491

If I am running capture zone scenarios in a fantasy setting, I am almost certainly calling them magic circles, ley points, and other small loci of mystical power.

The cultists are using a number of magic circles on the floor to conjure up some overwhelmingly powerful being. The magic circles cannot be destroyed or defaced, but control over them can be wrested away from the cultists. The PCs must stop the ritual.

To prevent a catastrophic earthquake from destroying the city, the PCs must channel primal power into a number of ley points spread across a spirit-blessed grove. A number of extremist druids would prefer to see the city destroyed, though, and try to stop the PCs from manipulating the ley points.

The PCs are conducting a ceremony within a cathedral to cure a great plague, invoking power across several sacred altars. Unfortunately, the demon lord of disease mass-possesses the priests and acolytes who were supposed to assist the PCs, and is on the verge of shattering the altars. The party must quickly complete the ceremony.

>>96486079 (OP)
I’ve done it before but it’s not easy to come up with ways in which this makes sense in a campaign.
Usually stuff like breaking the spirit of an overwhelming horde by stealing their standard and shitting on it

>>96486146
Because those are not RPGs.
Do you also tell people to play MTG if they want to have variable spell slots where they can swap out spells once a day?

>>96491541
Capture points are video games and ware games not RPGs.

>>96491456
>The magic circles cannot be destroyed or defaced
If that's how it works, the cultists should have put one on the door to the ritual chamber so the PCs couldn't break it down to interrupt them.
>A number of extremist druids would prefer to see the city destroyed, though
You'd think a circle of extremist druids who know the location of leylines that control earthquakes via primal power might not need to wait for one.
>Unfortunately, the demon lord of disease mass-possesses the priests and acolytes who were supposed to assist the PCs, and is on the verge of shattering the altars.
Very fortunate actually, since if he could possess the entire priesthood of the one temple capable of stopping his plans for a plague, the party is lucky he didn't decide to do that that a week ago.

This is the exact risk of a railroad I mentioned, where all of the magic circles and special points have to be indestructible and only active for the exact number of rounds the battle lasts, which also happens to be exactly when the enemies show up.

The players can't break the magic circles to stop a summoning.
The players can't split off some of the party to ambush and distract the druids.
The players can't recognize the risk of possession and ask the priests to leave.
The players may only stand in the designated circles.

Imagine seeing all the potential that wargames offer RPGs for interesting ideas and engagements or even subtle mechanics and the only thing someone like OP cares to take away from that is the gayest, least immersive and uninteresting concept imaginable that actually ruins the RP part of an RPG completely.

>>96491718

>If that's how it works, the cultists should have put one on the door to the ritual chamber so the PCs couldn't break it down to interrupt them.
Not how the creation and placement of these magic circles work, unfortunately. If the cultists had done that, then their ritual would not function.

>You'd think a circle of extremist druids who know the location of leylines that control earthquakes via primal power might not need to wait for one.
The earthquake is a natural occurrence. The spirit-blessed grove's purpose is to prevent such a natural disaster; it might have been enchanted by a more moderate group of druids. (Consider how in Eberron, there are moderate druids who want to strike a balance between nature and civilizations, and then there are more violent extremists.)

>Very fortunate actually, since if he could possess the entire priesthood of the one temple capable of stopping his plans for a plague, the party is lucky he didn't decide to do that that a week ago.
The demon lord has been able to amass the power to break through the cathedral's wards only now.

>This is the exact risk of a railroad I mentioned, where all of the magic circles and special points have to be indestructible and only active for the exact number of rounds the battle lasts, which also happens to be exactly when the enemies show up.
I do not care about that. If it makes for a more tactically engaging battle, I am all for it.

>The players can't break the magic circles to stop a summoning.
In a different tactical scenario, one themed around destroying key objects on the map, they might be able to do so. But that is a different tactical scenario, and this is a capture zone scenario.

>The players can't split off some of the party to ambush and distract the druids.
It is a valid strategy in a capture zone scenario to forgo sitting on a capture zone in favor of dragging enemies away from all of the zones.

>>96491718

>The players can't recognize the risk of possession and ask the priests to leave.
They might have already done just that, hence why the PCs are fighting a dozen or so possessed people and not over a hundred.

>The players may only stand in the designated circles.
Because that is simply how these magic circles, ley points, sacred altars, etc. work.

>>96491850
>I do not care about that.
That's probably why people are correct that you should simply play actual wargames which are designed for this sort of thing instead of forcing a square peg into a round hole.
>If it makes for a more tactically engaging battle, I am all for it.
Nothing makes for a less engaging battle than a GM declaring in advance that you have to solve the encounter in the way he's decided, and nothing you could have done can alter the circumstances.

>>96491858
>Because that is simply how these magic circles, ley points, sacred altars, etc. work.
>"It's not railroading! I just built the scenario so that you happened to have no options!"
Call it what you want, it's still shit.

>>96491910

I do not have an issue with playing within the confines of a predefined scenario with predefined victory conditions. I have seen it work well in ICON, and I have seen it work well in Draw Steel (although Draw Steel's own rules for objective-based combat could still use considerable tinkering for them to work properly).

I like grid-based tactical RPGs as a midpoint between more narrative-focused RPGs and outright wargames, so I think it is fine to import several wargame-like mechanics to vary up tactical combats.

Edna only understands a roleplaying game as a thing where numbers interact with other numbers. It's really bizarre.

Also, why the fuck have they been posting so much lately?

>>96491541
If it fit what they were looking for, I might, if nothing else than to see how it functions better than if they just mimicked it without ever actually experiencing what makes the original tick

>>96491945
Might be getting less engagement on Reddit, who knows

>>96489491
>If those zones have a chokepoint ahead of or behind them, why can the players not cut off the enemies entirely?
>What happens to the villagers if the party got really lucky and killed all the enemies before they got close, but didn't stand in the zones to gain enough victory points? Do villagers just drop dead?
You're not obviously limited by issues like that in a TTRPG like you would in a buggy video game.

>>96491970
Correct. A TTRPG allows you to have secondary objectives without needing to resort to pre-defined zones that award points just for the players standing in them. But that's not what's being proposed here.

>>96491734
>potential that wargames offer RPGs for interesting ideas and engagements or even subtle mechanics
Name two.

>>96491990
You just need to camouflage the "points" somehow and make them plot relevant. Maybe you have to stand on an obvious dais until enough lights come on in a stone circle or something (yeah I have been watching SG1 of late, sue me)

>>96491991
>Name two.
Integrating small-unit tactics into RPG encounters so it's not just 'X runs at you screaming and fights you until it dies' and doing away with the grid format for a more organic feel using templates and measuring.

I could go on but I get the feeling you're just being obstinate

>>96486079 (OP)
>>96486084
How does any of that prevent a team from turtling on the capture zone and just recreating the problem?

>>96493769
They'll take a hint when the dm makes a frowny face.

>>96493679
>I could go on but I get the feeling you're just being obstinate
NTA. I can save you both time.
I've had a similar discussion with OP before. They have a really hard time engaging with wargames because its not characters, even small scale skirmish stuff appears to be too abstract or depersonalized for them. Its autism, but its where they're at, they're not going to like wargame solutions because they don't have the same psychological attachment points. Even with character detailed skirmish wargames.

The only mystery here is why you still haven't killed yourself, Edna.

>Edna
Gimmie the quick rundown

>>96493889
>game numbers skew towards solved games with static defence results
>edna needs game numbers and dynamic movement but can't into wargames
That's it really.

>>96493769
>>96493782

For one, the zones are (probably) out in the open, offering few opportunities to turtle behind solid obstructions.

For two, there are multiple zones that need to be covered. Turtling in one zone means the enemies (and their reinforcements) can simply occupy the other zones.

>>96493889
An autistic person who claims to want to play and run role playing games, but in practice has zero interest in roleplaying games aside from a very narrow part of them. They also constantly get angry that games are perfectly balanced and just run themselves.

>>96493966
If the zones are in the open how do you explain their importance in game-universe such that it isn't obviously a game rule constraint?
Sounds like you'd need to have nothing markers in the middle of nowhere that have to be held for no reason, each combat, to have it be viable.
Are you sure you can't wargame?
if this is a long form troll to get back to whinging about 40k objective markers in tournament play I will laugh

>>96493987
*Aren't perfectly balanced.

>>96493889
>>96493992
>If this is a long form troll
No, it's a crossposter from reddit who speaks and plays games like an alien who doesn't understand the concept of a tabletop rpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/1na0mws/gridbased_tactical_rpgs_and_capture_zone_scenarios/

>>96493889
Alternate name for touhoufag

>>96494013
>from reddit
He's been posting here since /tg/ was new and Reddit was irrelevant.

>that episode where I personally got Levinblade nerfed

Icon was kino I wish I got to play more than like 5 combats. I played plenty of kill team 1e I dont mind these wargamey type victory point scenarios at all when they are randomly generated by a scenario dice. Its nice to have another layer on game where everything is about killing

>tfw league of legends dominion was good all along

>>96494024
>He's been posting here since /tg/ was new and Reddit was irrelevant.
Seriously, only idiotic newfags wouldn't recognize one of /tg/s oldest and prolific posters. Hell, I even look forward to them these days.

>>96493966
Ive had success with having "capture zones" in buildings and structures alongside using them in open air arenas. Honestly, Im kind of amazed you hadn't been using these sorts of things from when 4e released. It immediately clicked for me that the system supported this style of objective quite well. Then again I had been playing a lot of Halo at the time, so maybe my brain was just primed to see it (CTF and King of the Hill).

The big problem I've found is that certain systems just do not work for this style of objective. 5e absolutely fucking sucks to run these in. PF2e works well but you need to run either -2 PL or just use 4e style Minion rules so the players dont get overwhelmed. 4e is just fantastic, works super well. PF1e is either decent or dogshit depending on build and players.

>>96493992

>If the zones are in the open how do you explain their importance in game-universe such that it isn't obviously a game rule constraint?

They are magic circles, ley points, sacred altars, and the like, such as in the examples here: >>96491456

>>96493992
>Sounds like you'd need to have nothing markers in the middle of nowhere that have to be held for no reason, each combat, to have it be viable.

You seriously can't think of any situation where you need to keep hostile forces away from a specific area?

>>96494801
I can think of lots of temporary reasons that don't need to be gameified to be implemented, but permanent magic reasons are lame and gay. Why not just prioritize killing the enemy forces before worrying about dropping whatever npc needs to sit on the nest to hatch the eggs?

>>96494906
If you have a damage heavy team it can be viable to do this- kill em all and scramble to complete the objective at the end. This is less viable when scenarios track victory points each round.

>>96495040
>This is less viable when scenarios track victory points each round.
That's the thing though. There's rarely a logical reason why it works that way, where the players can't focus on the enemies first and worry about securing the objectives later. And keeping enemies away from an area similarly doesn't require necessarily standing in that area yourself.

Tracking the points each round is imposing a meta-limitation that simply tells the players they aren't allowed to prioritize certain tactics because you'll give them a game over if they don't collect enough good-boy points.

>>96494801
>You seriously can't think of why every battlefield needs to have multiple areas of importance with no cover in the middle of nowhere so the game's bad design doesn't make specific strats more viable than others?
No, that would be fucked and gay. OP wants tournament play 'balance' in an RPG combat.

>>96495575
thats how 40k does it and it works just fine

>>96495892
balance does not have to be a bad thing. Sometimes people want to play wizard chess instead of ' i cast raise on the volcano'

>>96495892
this kind of people don't want a balanced option or they would just play a wargame, they want the clunkiness of an rpg system so they can be overpowered and claim it's just "mastery of the system"

>>96486118
>>96488990
Fukkin newfags outing themselves so goddamn hard. Touhoufag has been around since at least 2008 if not older and his posting style has not changed in that entire time.
The only thing that ever changes is which waifushit he avatarfags with and which game he's autistically obsessed with.

>>96496100
we dont really have a trpg wargame yet. Something like frostgrave/stargrave with all classes having the complexity as wizards could be pretty cool

>>96496044
>thats how 40k does it and it works just fine
Yet more reasons to just play a fucking wargame if you want a wargame

>>96493679
Thank you, these sound more compelling than what OP's talking about, so you were right.

The removal of Morale Rules form D&D and the ripple effect that act has had on the hobby at large has been a major detriment to the hobby.

>>96486079 (OP)
>D&D 4e, Path/Starfinder 2e, Draw Steel, Tom Abbadon's ICON, level2janitor's Tactiquest, Tacticians of Ahm, and Tailfeathers/Kazzam
Which one of these (Or other ones you have played) did you like the most and would recommend?
I'm deeply interested in this type of play but PF2e and D&D4e seem too unwieldy to me (D&D baggage) and I've had my eyes on Lancer but the setting isn't particularly captivating. Waiting on Strike! 2e whenever that gets done.

>>96506503

If you are not a fan of D&D 4e or Path/Starfinder 2e, I would look into any one of Draw Steel, level2janitor's Tactiquest, Tacticians of Ahm, or Tailfeathers/Kazzam. (In particular, Tailfeathers/Kazzam is by the Strike! author, and is somewhat of a Strike! 1.5.)

I would recommend Tom Abbadon's ICON if it were not for 2.0 still being a work in progress.

>>96506518
Looked into BEACON? It is based on Lancer and fantasy themed like ICON but has its own initiative system.

>>96506596

Yes, I have looked into it. I think it seems okay.

>>96488990
NGL we need morale rules back for most kinds of monsters as the standard in fantasy RPG’s
Doesn’t even have to be anything too complicated either such as a creature acting according to its morale type when it hits half HP
Most untrained mooks flee, wild animals either flee or go berserk, trained units fall back in an organised fashion while sticking to their allies, it would make things like golems and undead extra scary too

These rules were removed to simplify the game but it’s reached the quagmire of a point where this shit doesn’t even cross the mind of most GMs

>>96506518
yeah ICON is quite good.

Strike is very mid

>>96506518
Where can I read Tactiquest? A quick google is turning up nothin

>>96507679

https://level2janitor.itch.io/tactiquest